[Nettime-bold] An old Essay by Me

[Nmherman@aol.com]

        Notes on Solitary and Collective Discourse                  

                                    Nickolas Herman
                                


There are two basic modes of discourse which are interconnected while 
distinct, and in combination form the differentiated whole of human 
expression and thought.

These two modes are solitary (or individual) discourse, and collective (or 
interactive) discourse.  Each can exist to some extent exclusive of the 
other, but they are eternally or physiologically connected in that there will 
always be a tangible drive to reconcile the two.  In fact, at the ultimate 
level neither can exist without at least some presence of the other.  (No one 
can use language at all, or the complex progressions of cognition of which it 
is the means, without having developed as infants in a functional, social 
language-environment.  Similarly, all collective expression takes its 
substance from the engagement and adaptation of the language-consciousness of 
individuals.)  However, the two modes are nonetheless distinct in that they 
operate as differentiated processes even when in perfect balance, and at 
times can exist in extreme imbalance.

The reasons for this distinct contrast are clear.  Human cognition benefits 
from the combination of the experience of individuals into an interactive 
whole.  The insights, experiences, and observations of each are to some 
extent accessible to the group.  (The brain as lateral line, i.e., 
interconnective in function.)  Also, expression--both verbal and 
non-verbal--is the basis for all the various relationships that constitute 
human social life, and this social nature is as integral to the species as 
sexual reproduction or the nursing of infants.  All humans thus have a strong 
need for their personal thoughts and reactions to be comprehensible to and 
recognized by the group in some fashion.   

However, there is an equally necessary role to be played by the individuality 
of consciousness of each person.  Without individual awareness, there would 
be no diversity of experience from which to compose the concentrated, 
enhanced collective discourse.   Neither would there be any basis for the 
differentiation of social roles like parent/child, mate/non-mate, 
friendly/hostile.  So the drive to assert the individual discourse--in other 
words, for the expressive activity in which one participates to satisfy the 
criteria of solitary discourse--is clearly both indispensable to the very 
possibility of collective discourse and a powerful instinctual drive.

This means that there can be situations where solitary discourse is in a 
great struggle with collective discourse.  Suppose you know there is a cave 
with a bear in it.  No one else has ever seen the bear, or any bear, and they 
plan to enter the cave.  At this point, your urge to assert your discourse 
over and against the group's would be very strong.  You would try to be 
persuasive and conciliatory, in the interest of understanding and 
communication, but to destroy the substance of your critique would be totally 
unacceptable.  At this point conflict might result.  (There are a thousand 
better examples of this conflict--the Greek polis and Creon, Galileo, Luther, 
etc.)  It is totally certain that at times, not only can a solitary discourse 
be maintained in conflict with the collective one, but it must in order for 
discourse of any nature to survive.  

    If this is true, how can one attack canonical expression for its "denial 
and suppression of communication?"  Clearly it is illogical to imply that one 
should only say the things that other people want to hear.  I do argue that 
art and canon isolate and fragment expression, creating hermits, 
"undialectical self-certitude," "subjectivity gone wild," and Voloshinov's 
"I-experience," and that these tendencies have destructive results.  Yet by 
the "lateral line" reasoning, it seems possible that some isolation and 
independence is essential to communication itself.  So what's the explanation?

It's fairly straightforward.  Art fudges its identity as a highly unbalanced, 
both over-solitary and over-collective discourse (Neibuhr's Collective 
Egotism).  It presents a fragmented, antagonistic discourse as the height of 
functional peace and symbiosis.  It fails to acknowledge its alienation of 
group and individual as a temporary distortion.  It establishes a solitary, 
transcendent, and thus universal and shared consciousness while suppressing 
concepts of the interactive community which self-generates knowledge through 
expressive relationships.

The communicative hypothesis which I am proposing clearly states that the 
solitary ate-discourse of anti-canonical critique is a temporary correction 
of existing distortions and need not be eternally perpetuated in textual or 
even rhetorical forms.  Whereas this corrective discourse is indeed solitary 
and conflictual, or retributive/redemptive, it does not negate the principle 
of the two expressive modes; the traditional theory of secular art does.  Art 
practices an exclusionary solitary discourse without acknowledging it as 
such, and practices an exclusionary collective discourse with equal denial of 
imbalance.  (An example of the denial of such an imbalance and its correction 
through the tragic cycle is Oedipus's discourse in Oedipus Rex.)

There are other issues surrounding this solitary/collective dynamic.  When 
the solitary perspective is under threat, and must be disproportionately 
emphasized in the interest of discourse in general, a "hermit" status must be 
formed.  This status is far more exaggerated in early cultural (i.e., 
canonical) environments than in pre- or post-historic or pre- or 
post-canonical contexts.  The hermit experience is the defining consciousness 
within the modes of art and canon--of the canonical era.  Emergence from this 
era will mean the emergence from a hermit paradigm; confinement in this era 
is the confinement in such a mode.  The necessity and substance of the era is 
that of the hermit mode.  

The reason why some degree of isolation is required to assert the individual 
discourse against the group is that the drive to reconcile is permanent, and 
can deform or confute the individual discourse.  To generate a sustainable 
solitary counter-perspective, its environment must therefore be narrowed and 
protected, creating a fragmentary and to some extent uninteractive discourse. 
   

Another set of issues surrounding this dialectic of two modes is this:  how 
does a writer/speaker persist in the solitary mode?  It's very stressful, and 
always ultimately unhealthy and unpleasant.  (Notes From Underground, 
Hunger.)  Judged by its chief historical examples, it requires a 
comprehensive committment of self and community.  This explains why solitary 
discourse-systems have often tended toward orthodoxy, a universalization of 
doctrinal ritual, evangelism/ expansionism, and conservatism; it also 
explains why transitions out of such systems are often turbulent and 
divisive, and why skepticism even of the present secular canon is seen by 
many as the solvent of organized and humane culture.  

Every person will and must judge to some extent individually regarding the 
merit of any particular case of solitary discourse.  Is the isolation really 
necessary, is it a tantrum born of resistance to discourse-maturity, or 
perhaps just an urge to be unique?  Whether or not any particular case is 
legitimate, there have certainly been some cases where solitary resistance 
has been justified by historical opinion.  (The canon is crammed with such 
cases.  Martyrdom is required for membership.)  The question may be best 
posed indefinitely:  all discourse is process and thus evolving, and ought 
not be judged as monolithic system legitimate or not once and for all.  The 
approach of scientific discourse to hypothesis and experiment is a sound 
comparison.  One thing, however, is certain:  every psyche has its tolerances 
for living without one or both of the solitary and collective modes, and to 
ignore the law of mental well-being can bring a person or a community serious 
trouble.  Even from the perspective of efficient production, a destroyed, 
deranged brain isn't worth much to its owner or its neighbors (though it may 
be to all-judging Jove).


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold